EDITION: Wilkes County â–¼
â–º FAQs â–º PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD â–º ADVERTISE YOUR BUSINESS
43 °
Fair
Registered Users, Log In Here
â–º
The swing vote on scotus Antonin Scalia dies.

shouldawouldacoulda

Posted 8:45 pm, 02/15/2016

A new screen name for THAT?

Low expectations.

****

Posted 8:40 pm, 02/15/2016

Note from GoNC: this post was removed for vulgarity.

youlie

Posted 8:14 pm, 02/15/2016

Reich Wing media enables the repubican obstructionism
http://mediamatters.org/blo...nab/208599

Grayson

Posted 8:12 pm, 02/15/2016

"is the Kettle calling the Skillet Black? What hypocrites."

While I can't speak to Schumer's possible underlying political motivation, the quote misrepresents what Schumer claimed his actual position was. Schumer essentially suggested that he felt that Alito and Roberts were confirmed because they claimed to unbiased by personal ideology, but then demonstrated that they were biased by personal ideology. He thought that democrats washington had been "hoodwinked" to believe that Alito and Roberts would be biased to Justice, not personal ideology. I believe that Schumer's stated position is different from one just taking the position that a justice shouldn't be confirmed because one isn't on the same team as the President. Regardless, this speaks to the problem with even bringing politics and personal ideology into the mix. The bias from the prospective nominees and those responsible for confirmation should always be to the nominees demonstrated record regarding and commitment to Rule of Law and constitutional integrity. Here's a link from politico addressing Schumer's position and the response to it...



"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WAS NOMINATED FOR THE COURT ON JULY 19, 2005 AND CONFIRMED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2005. NOT MUCH OBSTRUCTIONISM AS I SEE."

Your point is redundant because Alito and Roberts had already been confirmed when Schumer made the (ultimately hypothetical) statement being quoted herein. In fact, Schumer's statement was in regards to what Schumer felt was Justice Alito and Roberts' demonstrated bias after they had been appointed. Unless he had a DeLorean and a flux capacitor, he couldn't have been an obstructionist after making this statement. Stevens didn't retire until 2010 and Ginsburg is still sitting and those were the two Justices who were the focus of concern.

shouldawouldacoulda

Posted 1:37 pm, 02/15/2016

"I agree that Scalia brought a perspective to the court that is lacking."

Biggest ***hole?

shouldawouldacoulda

Posted 1:36 pm, 02/15/2016

So, the lunatic thinks voting AGAINST a nominee is the same as not bringing a nominee up for a vote?

By the way, how does this sound: Justice Loretta Lynch. Different job, but she's already been vetted.

Umpire

Posted 1:27 pm, 02/15/2016

ALTO'S SENATE CONFIRMATION WASN'T IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.

KEEP TRYING STUPID!

this n that

Posted 1:19 pm, 02/15/2016

Democrat hypocrite worms wriggling out of their slime holes.

http://www.breitbart.com/vi...-on-alito/

/leahy-height-of-irresponsibility-not-to-vote-on-obama-scotus-pick-voted-against-cloture-on-alito/

Umpire

Posted 12:45 pm, 02/15/2016

A BIG SHOUTOUT AND THANK YOU TO CONRAD(PLP)!

THANK YOU FOR THAT WONDERFUL LINK FROM THAT ULTRA CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY WEBSITE!

BUT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT WHAT YOU INTENDED.

THE MAJORITY OF THE ARTICLE IN YOUR LINK TALKS ABOUT JOHN TYLER'S INABILITY TO HAVE ANY OF HIS SUPREME COURT NOMINEES CONFIRMED. WHILE THIS IS TRUE, ONE HAS TO RESEARCH THIS A LITTLE DEEPER THAN PLP HAS THE ABILITY TO DO. SO, LET US DELVE INTO THIS FURTHER.

MR. TYLER WAS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT TO ASCEND TO THE OFFICE OF TE PRESIDENCY UPON THE DEATH OF THE PRESIDENT, WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON. AS SUCH, THE CONTROLLING PARTY IN CONGRESS, LED BY HENRY CLAY, THOUGHT HE SHOULD RESIGN AND LET ONE OF THEIR OWN BECOME PRESIDENT.

MR. TYLER SAW IT DIFFERENT AND ESTABLISHED THE PRECEDENT OF A ORDERLY SUCCESSION . AS SUCH, THE PARTY IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS WOULD NOT WORK WITH HIM ON ANYTHING.

NOW, WHAT THE IRONIC PART OF THIS IS, PRESIDENT TYLER'S PARTY AFFILIATION WAS THE WHIG PARTY, THE PREDECESSOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THE PARTY IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS AT THE TIME? THE WHIGS.

THE MORAL TO THIS BIT OF HISTORY IS, NOT ONLY ARE REPUBLICANS OBSTRUCTIONISTS, BUT THEY EAT THEIR OWN.

THANKS AGAIN CONRAD!

youlie

Posted 12:43 pm, 02/15/2016

Why do sniffers hate Obama? Let him do his job!

hangsleft

Posted 12:23 pm, 02/15/2016

http://www.politifact.com/t...inal-year/

Bush certainly had no issues nominating judges in his last year.

Umpire

Posted 12:09 pm, 02/15/2016

WHAT ARTICLE?

george h w b

Posted 12:04 pm, 02/15/2016

UMPIRE.....U are the most "Fu****" up DemocRAT I have ever seen. Read the frigging article.

Umpire

Posted 11:17 am, 02/15/2016

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WAS NOMINATED FOR THE COURT ON JULY 19, 2005 AND CONFIRMED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2005. NOT MUCH OBSTRUCTIONISM AS I SEE.

KEEP TRYING!

youlie

Posted 11:17 am, 02/15/2016

Sniffers want President Obama to sit on his hands and do nothing. I believe he will do his job and nominate a Justice.
Whether or not the do-nothing Senate approves said nominee, that is another story :'(

this n that

Posted 11:12 am, 02/15/2016

On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:

How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president's term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.

Schumer is slated to replace Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as the Democrats' leader in the Senate after this year, when Reid retires.

No word yet from Schumer as to why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months.


george h w b

Posted 11:06 am, 02/15/2016

youlie

Posted 9:55 pm, 02/14/2016

Since Clown Trump and the other Clowns want Obama to not do his job and nominate a replacement, should we assume GOP sniffers want him to take off the rest of his term and play golf?
Of course if we had a republitard President, the sniffers would be shouting for a speedy appointment.
Sniffer hypocrites!

Have you forgot the DemocRAT by the name of SCHUMER. Here is his statement about BUSH nominee to the Supreme Court.

"I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito on the court.

This past Sunday, Schumer called McConnell's actions "OBSTRUCTIONISM".
This kind of OBSTRUCTIONISM isn't going to last, Schumer told ABC's This Week.

****, is the Kettle calling the Skillet Black? What hypocrites.

Elmo Cleghorn

Posted 10:42 am, 02/15/2016

Top Soil (view profile)

Antonin Scalia requested cremation in his will, but millions of women will meet tomorrow to discuss if that's really best for his body.


lol

Truthseeker911

Posted 10:14 am, 02/15/2016

Grayson, I agree that's how it SHOULD be in all judicial positions, but reality shows that is not the case. I do not understand why more people are not outraged at the thought of a judge holding a position on the SCOTUS, is biased toward a particular party.

The ramifications should terrify everyone.

AboveTopSecret

Posted 8:48 am, 02/15/2016

We will get a nominee that has already been vetted by the senate.

Joines & James, Attorneys at Law
Joines & James, Attorneys at Law PLLC. 336 838-2701
Project Lazarus - BE THERE
For those struggling with substance use disorder, being there is everything.
Click to learn more
503 C St. N. Wilkesboro
336.818.1660
Invest commission-free & no account minimums!
We're all about helping you get more from your money. Let's get started today. Trade stocks, bonds, options, ETFs, and mutual funds, all in one easy-to-manage account.